1: Yes, more than one Protag can address and Issue. Just write the other player's name in the same box.2: That means that they lost their own Intent. If the Antagonist won, that's not the same thing.3: Let's say there are four of us playing: you, me, Emily, and Eppy. I'm playing your Antagonist. We roll and Emily uses her Minutia die to make you lose. You risk a Feature to get to reroll and we do. Eppy can now use his Minutia die to affect the outcome, but Emily can't because she already used hers up.4: Naw, it's much simpler than that. You always have two Links. When you risk one and lose it, it comes back as something new. Most of the time, it's an evolution of the previous one. "My children" becomes "my estranged children" for instance.

Cool?

Logged

the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

1: Intents should never really say "and". That gets very confusing. "I inject myself with the serum" is your Intent. All the breaking in stuff we can find out about as we play stuff out, either before or after.

2: The Antagonist *must* use hir biggest d4. It's not an option. I'm not sure if you're sayng it is, but it's not.

3: Groucho is acting correctly. The boo/cheer test is the right way to think about it. The rules assume that you like what you said yourself. The rule is for getting others to buy in or at least trust that you can make the idea enjoyable.

4: When you risk a Link, the Intent is the same, but the relationship to that Link is also implicitly risked. You are correct that Groucho has already used his dice and Chico and Harpo's 1 and 2. Chico's decision is correct and legal.

Cool?

Logged

the glyphpress's games are Shock: Social Science Fiction and Under the Bed.

1: Intents should never really say "and". That gets very confusing. "I inject myself with the serum" is your Intent. All the breaking in stuff we can find out about as we play stuff out, either before or after.

So let's say the antagonist is "the government's desire to keep the research program secret". Our protagonist found out about the lab in a previous scene. The protagonist player describes sneaking up to the wire and cutting it, the antagonist talks about dogs, the protagonists throws poison meat, they spin a story (without mechanics intervening) for a while. Eventually the antagonist player decides that he's not just letting the protagonist player narrate his way to success, it's time to throw down. And at this point the protagonist player formally states his intent as "to inject the serum", which is the crucial thing he wants, and the antagonist states some intent too. That gets mechanically resolved with praxis and whatnot, and they can create whatever narrative they like that's consistent with the dice results and the stated intents. [And maybe the audience chip in with their d4(s).]

Is this how it all works?

Quote

2: The Antagonist *must* use hir biggest d4. It's not an option. I'm not sure if you're sayng it is, but it's not.

Yep, got that.

Quote

3: Groucho is acting correctly. The boo/cheer test is the right way to think about it. The rules assume that you like what you said yourself. The rule is for getting others to buy in or at least trust that you can make the idea enjoyable.

So if anybody else at the table strongly agrees with what the participating audience member used their dice to do, it stands? And that includes the *tagonist players (one of whom may benefit/suffer), it's not just a poll of the other audience members?

Quote

4: When you risk a Link, the Intent is the same, but the relationship to that Link is also implicitly risked.

So the protagonist player would leave the "which will" clause out of their stated intent. If it happens that they fail on the second attempt, they need change their link. So they might change it to "publicly disowned the campaign group" and narrate the business about stealing for money being bad PR.